Loading...
PCMIN 06 10 1997 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California June 10, 1997 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Newkirk to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Gardner, Butler, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Planning Manager Christine di I.orio, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of May 27, 1997. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to approve the minutes as submitted. B. Department Report: Chairman Abels informed the Commission that staff was requesting to start the regular meeting of July 8, 1997, at 5:00 p.m. due to the two major projects that were on the agenda. Following discussion, it was unanimously approved by all Commissioners to start the July 8, 1997 meeting at 4:00 p.m. The La Quinta Hotel request would be considered first and the Auto Mall project second. PC6-I0-97 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 1 O, 1997 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Washington square specific plan 87-011. Amendment #2. Vesting Tentative Tract 27031. and Site Development Permit 97-605; a request of the City of La Quinta, Apollo Inc., and Eagle Hardware and Garden for an Amendment to the Washington Square Specific Plan, a one year time extension for the Vesting Tentative Tract, and review of the building elevations, site, lighting, sign, and landscaping plans for a one story 208,000 square foot retail building. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to identify the location of Lot "D". Staff reviewed the locations on the map. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked why staff was not asking to see the complete site development plan. Staff explained this was a timing issue for the Tentative Tract Map. As the applicant was asking for a time extension for the tract and the lots were tied to the Specific Plan, they were required to be submitted at the same time. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained and gave a complete analysis of the site. It is a traffic generated Specific Plan and it never identified specific uses on the site. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not understand how a map with roads and parcels could be thrown away and come back later with a new design and yet approve one project in the middle of the project. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained the tract map is tied to the Specific Plan and the entire tract must go with the request for the time extension. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain trip generations. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated this is unique to this Specific Pln. A formula is used to determine the Floor Area Ration (F.A.R.) and he went on to explain how it was determined. PC6-10-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 1 O, 1997 6. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to show where the ten foot landscape easement was to be located. Staff showed the details on the map. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked where the sound wall was to be located. Staff stated it was across the'street on the west side to reduce the noise for the Highland Palms tract. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained this is the existing wall that is on the west side of Washington Street from the Saint Frances of Assisi Church to Simon Drive. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked if the landscaping plans had a height limit on the berms. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it would be three feet. Commissioner Woodard questioned Condition #47, as to why the landscaping was to be approved by staff. Staff stated the applicant would be required to meet the Conditions of Approval. If the Commission wanted the landscaping to come back to the Commission, the conditions would be changed to reflect this. __ 9. Commissioner Gardner asked what the height of the berming and landscaping would' be on Highway 111. Staff stated it would be three feet. 10. Commissioner Newkirk questioned Condition #5 of the Specific Plan as to whether or not the applicant would be required to build the six foot decorative wall on 47th Avenue. Staff clarified this was a condition of the Specific Plan and as the applicant did not have any uses that would require the wall, he would not participate in the wall costs. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the square footage of the proposed building. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated at was 212,058 square feet. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the street access off Highway 111 nearest Simon Drive. Staff stated they would be required to give the City an easement to provide for the access. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that Condition ~43 of the Site Development Permit clarifies the access driveways and went on to explain how they would function. Discussion followed regarding the alternatives that were available to the applicant. PC6-10-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 1997 12. Commissioner Woodard asked what the grid system was on the elevation drawings. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained it was the entry design. Commissioner Woodard asked if the columns were out front of the wall. Staff stated the applicant would need to explain. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to identify what. the hard line was on the site plan on the northwest property line. It appeared to be landscaping pockets. Principal Planner Fred Baker explained it was the curb line. 13. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not understand why Condition #20 of the Specific Plan was being required. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated this was a'condition of the Specific Plan and the lot configuration was a part of the Vesting Tentative Tract. Commissioner Tyler asked staff if this was part of the existing or proposed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained this was a part of Amendment # 1 and #2 to the Specific Plan. 14. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Thomas Sconzo, Sconzo/Hallstrom Architects, the architect for the project, gave an overview and history of the project and Eagle Hardware. He clarified that the colunms referred to by Commissioner Woodard, were ten to twelve feet away from the building toward the parking lot. The overhanging canopy runs from one end of the building to the other and comes out almost to the sidewalk. It was their opinion that shade would make the customers more comfortable. All the exterior walls would be treated so the concrete would not be seen. 15. Chairman Abels asked why Eagle had chosen La Quinta to be their first site in California. Mr. Sconzo stated he did not know, he thought it might be a marketing strategy. Other me.mbers of the development team were present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Jack Franks, owner of the property, stated the owner of Eagle Hardware and Garden is a property owner in the desert and wanted to have one of their stores in the desert. 16. Commissioner Newkirk stated he was concerned about the competition between the two hardware stores. He did not want La Quinta to be stuck with one, or two large buildings standing vacant. Mr. Sconzo explained the viability of Eagle Hardware. PC6-10-97 4 rn '~'~-~ion Meeting 17. Commissioner Gardner stated he was impressed with the rendering and in particular the 12-foot overhang. He stated the plan indicated that the roof would have the flat concrete tile and he was curious how they would react to changing it to "S" shaped red tile to match everything else in La Quinta. Mr. Sconzo, stated that as long as theirs was blue, he would not care if the blue were "S" shaped. They were wanting a contemporary look instead of the traditional Spanish architecture. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified that the Architectural Guidelines did not speak to a specific design theme, but to the quality of design. 18. Commissioner Gardner asked what type of vegetation would be on top of the three foot berm and if it would block the parking lot from those driving down Highway 111. Also, would the one driveway access be enough to handle the demand? Could the berm be raised above five feet? Mr. John Vogley, landscape architect, stated the berming on Highway 111 would be consistent with the corridor planning as outlined by the City. They envisioned the berm to be 18-inches to 3-feet with planting on top of the berm. This would provide screening of the parking lot from Highway 111 but would not block the view of the mountains. Commissioner Gardner asked Mr. Vogle to explain the line of site. 19. Commissioner Woodard asked how the water retention would be handled. Mr. Vogley stated retention was not required between the parking lot and berm. 20. Commissioner Butler stated the City should be very proud of this project and in his opinion, would be highly used due to the growth in La Quinta. He stated he thought the Highway 111 landscaping had a standard for berming height. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it is in the narrative, but was not shown on the plans. 21. Commissioner Woodard stated the architecture was superb. On the west elevation, he questioned the columns being 12-feet out. Mr. Sconzo clarified that the west elevations columns were six feet out to break up the building. 22. Commissioner Woodard stated his only concem architecturally was the front elevation on the left side of the upper wall. In his opinion, it was extremely long and needed to be broken up. The right side has a stepped parapet to break ap this elevation. He would like the same treatment on the left side. Mr. Sconzo stated it was possible. Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 1997 23. Commissioner Seaton complimented the applicant on the design, and stated her concern was the number of same-type businesses coming into La Quinta and the probability of empty buildings. She then asked him to explain the lumber drive-up yard. Mr. Sconzo explained the process of the lumber yard. Commissioner Seaton questioned the roll-up doors. Mr. Sconzo stated the doors are open during business hours and closed when the store closes. He did not believe they would be an issue. Commissioner Seaton asked if the color of the sign was red. Mr. Sconzo stated it was his understanding that it would be red, but he would need to refer to the people who do the signs. 24. Chairrrtan Abels stated his first concern was also regarding the economic viability of two of the same retailers in close proximity. However, after hearing how the store operated, it was his opinion that they were different from each other and Eagle would be catering to a different clientele. He then commended the applicant for having an acceptable design upon their first submittal. 25. Commissioner Newkirk stated that he had heard from friends that they were the "Nordstroms" of hardware. 26. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 27. Commissioner Woodard commended the applicant and asked that the berms be required to be three feet, the left portion of the top parapet wall be similar to the right side parapet, and the landscaping on the center walkway be modified to include large specimens. 28. Commissioner Gardner concurred that the berm be three feet with a substag, tial amount of landscaping. He too had an objection to the wall and would like to have the additional treatment. 29. Commissioner Newkirk stated he concurred with the statements that had already been made. 30. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not believe La Quinta Drive had not been adequately identified. The Environmental Impact Report speaks about Fugitive Dust and he would like to know if the Commission can condition the PC6-10-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 1997 applicant to use the vacuum style of street sweeper to minimize the dust. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they had prepared a Fugitive Dust Plan based upon the guidelines for air quality and this is all they are required can do. Staff can suggest they use the other sweeper, but cannot require them to do so. 31. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a problem with conditions from the previous plan being brought forth for Commission approval and not having the Specific Plan and Tract conditions updated. What the Commission should do depends on how quickly the applicant is going to update the Specific Plan. For example, several of the conditions of the Specific Plan have already been completed and the conditions do not reflect this. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Specific Plan encompasses the entire site. This request is only a small portion of the overall project. Therefore, the City can only require the applicant to address these issues at this time. As the remainder of the site is still to be completed, some of the conditions had to remain in place to see that all areas are addressed. The Site Development Permit addresses what Eagle Hardware is required to do. The Specific Plan addresses what the entire site is required to complete. 32. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to define a "transient" station. Staff stated that it' refers to taking the Sunline bus stop off of Washington Street and moving it to Simon Drive. That may or may not happen. It was something Sunline wanted the City to ad&ess. At the present time the bus stop appears to be working where it is currently located. Commissioner Tyler asked what the bus stop design would be. Staff stated it would be according to the Highway 111 Guidelines reviewed previously by the Commission. 33. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Woodard/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-032 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 97-339) according to the Findings set forth in the Resolutions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PC6-10-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 1997 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Gardner/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-033 recommending approval of Washington Square Specific Plan Amendment//2, as conditioned with the recommended changes to Condition//20. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-034 recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 27031, subject to conditions as modified. Condition//38 to read that reference be given to Section 13.160.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance A-G including requirements for details on height, size, and location of proposed buildings, architectural elevations, schematic plans and material boards, preliminary grading and landscaping plans, and a phasing plan for proposed development prior to recording the final map. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-035 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-605 to allow construction of a 212,085 square foot one story retail building, subject to conditions as modified: a. A three foot minimum berm. b. The left portion of the upper left parapet be modified to mirror the right side parapet. c. The central walkway area have the larger trees. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated that from the presentations, discussions, comments, questions and answers that have taken place during this public hearing, it is obvious that the applicant has gone to great lengths to tailor his project to comply with La Quinta's Zoning Codes and building regulations, and to blend Eagle Hardware and Garden into our community. As we have heard tonight, the proposed development, as conditioned, meets or exceeds PC6-10-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 1997 the established community standards. As a Planning Commissioner he applauds the applicant for his efforts, and looks forward to Eagle Hardware taking its place in the City's business community. It is his intention to give this project his favorable vote. However, as a concerned citizen of La Quinta, he has some very real concerns regarding the obvious fact that Eagle Hardware will essentially duplicate other similar, nearby competitive endeavors, one of which hasn't opened yet. One has only to travel Highway 111 east a couple of miles into the City of Indio to see a vacant "big box" hardware/lumber/garden center that folded after only about a year of operation. On Indio Boulevard, another similar outlet (without the garden adjunct) recently closed its doors after many years of operation, due to the prospect of intense competition from a nation-wide chain. Another lumber/hardware operation near the comer of Washington Street and Interstate 10 closed a year or two ago, although it has recently reopened under new management. In the nearby retail complex of Dinah Shore and Monterey Avenue, where there are two big competing nation-wide lumber/hardware/nursery outlets, one appears to be barely hanging on. He strongly supports free enterprise and spirited economic competition. However, as a planner and as a conscientious citizen, he would certainly hate to see La Quinta end up with a vacant "big box" building, regardless of which side of Highway 111 its on. He can only hope that your market research has been thorough and accurate, and that this community can and will support two very similar, profitable operations in close proximity. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission of the Conference on June 19th concerning Coachella Valley Economic Development. If anyone intended to go, they would need to contact staff to make the arrangements. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meeting of June 3, 1997. PC6-10-97 · 9 Planning Commission Meeting _ June 10, 1997 B. Chairman Abels stated he would attend the next City Council meeting. He encouraged all Commissioners to attend the meeting of June 12th regarding the Highway 111 Guidelines. C. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to commend Commissioner Newkirk for his service while serving as a Planning Commissioner. This was to be his last meeting as he had chosen not to re-enlist. Commissioner Newkirk thanked everyone and stated he enjoyed his term. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on June 24, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. on June 10, 1997. PC6-10-97 10